Judgment P.K.Deb and D.P.S.Choudhary JJ. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his related Grand-father, namely, Rajnath Singh in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 1988 (76/88) by the then 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna. The conviction was held under Section 302, IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act and he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302, IPC but no separate sentence has been passed under Secton 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The accused-appellant Ramji Singh happens to be the grand-son the brother of the deceased Rajnath Singh and the Informant Mohan Singh PW-5 happens to be the husband of grand-daughter of the deceased Rajnath Singh through his daughter. The deceased Rajnath Singh alias Ram Singh was the resident of village Birju Bigha under Gaurichak P.S. while the Informant Mohan Singh is the resident of another village Sampatchak. 3. The prosecution case is that the deceased Rajnath Singh alias Ram Singh had no other relations of his own leaving at the relevant time of occurrence and being an old man he used to reside at village Sampatchak along with his grand-daughter and her husband and occasionally he used to come to his own village at Birju Bigha for cultivation of his land which measured about 14 to 15 bighas. It appears that the deceased was very much attached to the Informant Mohan Singh and his wife as the wife of Mohan Singh is the only own blood relation of the deceased being the daughters daughter. The occurrence took place on 12-11-1986 in the morning hours at about 6.30 a.m. As per the prosecution case on the previous date of occurrence, the deceased came to the village Birju Bigha for the purpose of transplanation in his land and he was accompanied by the Informant Mohan Singh and another Sakaldeo Singh PW-4. On the date of occurrence in the morning hours, the deceased being accompanied by Mohan Singh and Sakaldeo Singh proceeded towards the field for the purpose of easing. The deceased was ahead of all having lathi and danda in his hand. Mohan Singh and Sakaldeo Singh were behind him about 12 to 13 yards back. On the date of occurrence in the morning hours, the deceased being accompanied by Mohan Singh and Sakaldeo Singh proceeded towards the field for the purpose of easing. The deceased was ahead of all having lathi and danda in his hand. Mohan Singh and Sakaldeo Singh were behind him about 12 to 13 yards back. When they reached in the secluded place near the bel tree then all of a sudden the accused-appellant Ramji Singh came out from the bushes behing the bel tree and started firing on the deceased Rajnath Singh. On seeing this the Informant Mohan Singh and Sakaldeo Singh fled away from the place of occurrence raising alarm and hulla. On hearing the sound of firing and the hulla raised by the Informant and Sakaldeo Singh, villagers, namely, PW-1 Vidya Nand Singh his son PW-2 Vijay Singh and PW-3 Shyam Babu Singh who were also in the nearby place came to the place of occurrence and saw the accused-appellant fleeing away being armed with fire-arms. It was also the prosecution case that the accused-appellant while fleeing away threatened the witnesses that if he is entrangled in the murder case then all will be faced with dire consequences. It has also come on record that this accused-appellant had already been prosecuted for comitting murder of his own uncle Tulsi Singh and he was facing trial in that case when the present case was being tried. There was also a further criminal case against the accused-appellant when he trespassed and grabbed the house of Tulsi Singh and only on the Police intervention the house could be recovered from the illegal possession of the accused-appellant. Police came to the spot at about 10 a.m. on hearing a rumour that a man was killed in the village Birju Bigha and at the village Mohan Singh PW-5 made a fardbeyan giving a vivid description about the whole occurrence. On the basis of the fardbeyan a Police case was registered and then investigation was held. During the course of investigation inquest was held over the dead body which was lying at the place of occurrence in the secluded place near the bel tree and then dead body was sent for autopsy. Accused appellant was arrested and after conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Accused appellant was arrested and after conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. On being committed to the Sessions vide order dated 20-4-1989 charges were framed against the accused-appellant under the same Sections of the penal provisions and when the same was read over and explained to the accused-appellant, he pleaded not guilty. 4. The defence case as is found from cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the suggestions put to them to the effect that it was the Informant who had killed the deceased for grabbing the land of the deceased and falsely the accused-appellant has been implicated. Those suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses including that of the Informant had been stoutly denied. 5. For and on behalf of the prosecution as many as eight witnesses have been examined. Out of them PW-5 Mohan Singh the Informant and PW-4 Sakaldeo Singh are the direct eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW-1 Vidyanand Singh. PW-2 Vijay Singh and PW-3 Shyam Babu Singh have also posed themselves to be the eye witness to the occurrence. Some of them have stated that they had seen the accused-appellant causing fire-arm injury on the person of the deceased also but all these three witnesses have stated in unequivocal terms that when they looked towards the spot on hearing gun-shot fire the accused-appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence being armed with pistol and threatening them that if anybody implicates him with the murder then he should also face the same consequence. They have also seen the direct eye-witnesses PW-4 and PW-5 fleeing away backwards out of fear. PW-6 Dr. S.K. Rai Choudhary held post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Fire arm wound of entry on fron of chest in fourth inter-costal space just left of stemom size 1/2" x 1/2" x chest cavity deep with a colour of gun powder founding. (ii) Fire-arm wound of exit on back in ninth intercostal space on just left on vertebra 1/4" x 1/4" with everted margin. (iii) On dissection the track of projectile was found to have passed through heart, which was lacerated, that left lung, the mediastenum and left chest cavity contained nearly one litre of blood. Blood was also present on garments. (ii) Fire-arm wound of exit on back in ninth intercostal space on just left on vertebra 1/4" x 1/4" with everted margin. (iii) On dissection the track of projectile was found to have passed through heart, which was lacerated, that left lung, the mediastenum and left chest cavity contained nearly one litre of blood. Blood was also present on garments. According to the doctor such injuries were caused due to use of fire-arms. PW-7 Paras Nath Singh is the Investigating Officer who had also recorded the fardbeyan of PW-5 Mohan Singh. PW-8 Basdeo Singh is only a formal witness regarding proof of the FIR. On scrutiny of the evidence adduced for and on behalf of the prosecution and also on consideration of the defence case, the learned Sessions Judge came to the finding that the charges framed against the accused-appellant could be proved beyond all reasonable doubt and hence conviction was arrived at and imposed sentences as already mentioned above. 6 The genesis of the prosecution case is that the accused-appellant was apprehensive that the deceased an old man who had no male issues might be giving away his property to the Informant i.e. PW-5 Mohan Singh and in that case the property would go away to outside the family and the accused-appellant had greedy eyes over the property of the deceased and he wanted to grab the same It has also been mentioned that the accused-appellant happens to be the grand-son by his relation of the deceased On the other hand, the defence wanted to put the burden on the Informant Mohan Singh for commission of the murder of the deceased and according to the defence the Informant had greedy eyes over the lands of the deceased and he wanted to grab the same for which he had committed the murder of the deceased who happenned to be his Nania Sasur. The plea of the defence and the genesis attempted from the side of the defence has rightly been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge giving cogent reasons, when the deceased an old man had no other male issues or any relation from his blood except the wife of the Informant then in natural course by inheritence the property would go into the hands of the Informant and there was no need for committing murder of the deceased for grabbing the land of the deceased by the Informant. Moreover, the prosecution case as averred has not been denied to the effect that the deceased because of his old age used to reside with Informant at his village Sampatchak and only occasionally visited his own village at Birju Bigha for the purpose of cultivation of his share of land rather the genesis as depicted from the side of the prosecution seem to be more probable that the accused-appellant has got greedy eyes for the lands which would also come up from the history itself when only six months prior to the present occurrence he had allegedly killed his uncle for grabbing his land and also trespassed and grabbed the house of Tulsi Singh which could only be recovered at the intervention of the Police. Several other criminal cases were also pending against the accused-appellant. 7. Now coming to the occurrence, an attempt has been made from the side of the learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellant to the effect that occurrence did never take place at Saloni Khandha secluded place near the bel tree rather the deceased was killed elsewhere and the dead body was kept at that place but it appears from the evidence of the Investigating Officer that at the place of occurrence blood was found but as it was a sandy place, blood was found to be soaked and that blood-soaked sand was collected from the place of occurrence and was also produced before the trial Court but unfortunately that blood-stained or blood-soaked sand had not been exmined chemically. It has never been suggested from the side of the defence as to where elsewhere the murder was committed and who had brought the dead body at the place of occurrence. It appears that such plea of shifting of place of occurrence was only a plea for pleas sake. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence of the I.O. and the ocular evidence of the eye-witnesses came to the just finding that the occurrence took place at Saolani Handa at sandy place near bel tree, so this submission on behalf of the accuseds appellant has got no force. Only because the blood-soaked sand had not been chemically examined could not throw away the prosecution case towards the shifting of the place of occurrence. Only because the blood-soaked sand had not been chemically examined could not throw away the prosecution case towards the shifting of the place of occurrence. Unless it could be shown that there was plausibility in the evidence that murder was committed somewhere else, non-examination of blood-soaked sand by chemical analysis cannot take away the prosecution case. 8. In the present case, there are two direct eye-witnesses to the occurrence, namely, Mohan Singh and Sakaldeo Singh. It is the case of the prosecution that on the previous date of occurrence the deceased came to his village Birju Bigha being accompanied by Mohan Singh from his village Sampatchak and on the date of occurrence for easing himself, he went out towards maidan being accompanied by Mohan Singh and Sakaldeo Singh and both these witnesses have stated that when they just reached near the bel tree then the accused-appellant who was hiding himself from before behind the bushes came out and fired his gun aiming towards the deceased from the close range and seeing this out of fear, both Sakaldeo Singh and Mohan Singh fled away towards back when they were also being threatened by the accused-appellant. Even if Mohan Singh being the relation of the deceased is said to be a partisan witness the other eye witness Sakaldeo Singh is an independent witness who has supported the prosecution case in toto. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence as wound by fire-arm injury was found together with exit and entrance by the doctor who held autopsy. Part of the occurrence has also been supported by the other three witnesses, namely, PWs 1, 2 and 3. It has been stated for and on behalf of the accused-appellant before this Court that these three witnesses are only chance witnesses but we do not agree with such terminology imposed on these witnesses rather we find that they are also natural witnesses. All these three witnesses are the villagers of village Birju Bigha. They had no relation either with the accused-appellant or the deceased. All these three witnesses are the villagers of village Birju Bigha. They had no relation either with the accused-appellant or the deceased. According to PW-1 in the early morning hours, he came out of his house towards maidan for the purpose of walk while PWs 2 and 3 1 ave stated that they went out of their house and came towards the place of occurrence for the purpose of easing themselves and only on hearing the sound of gun firing they looked towards the spot and found the deceased falling down receiving gun-shot injuries and the accused-appellant fleeing away with gun in his hand threatening the people there not to implicate him in the incident otherwise those witnesses would also face the same consequence. Learned Sessions Judge has rightly held that those three witnesses had no scope of visualising the occurrence to see the actual assault on the person of the deceased but the next part of the occurrence i.e. fleeing away of the accused-appellant from the place of occurrence being armed with gun must have been a truthful one as they had the scope to see that part of the occurrence. Both PW-4 and PW-5 have, been cross-examined at length including the PW-2 and PW-3 but lengthy cross-examination could also not dislodge the witnesses regarding the factum of the occurrence and the eye witnessing of the same by these witnesses. 9. Regarding the medical evidence it has been strenuously argued for and on behalf of the accused-appellant to the effect that although it was stated by both the eye-witnesses PWs 4 and 5 that the accused-appellant had shot his gun within close range but the medical evidence belies the same that no scorching blackening and tattooing could be found around the wound of entrance which is but natural if the gun-shot was made from a close range. In this respect, the ocular evidence made by the eye-witnesses had been rightly deciphered by the learned Sessions Judge. They had stated that the gun-shot was fired by placing the gun BHIRAKAR and not by SATAKAR. The close range as has been deposed by the eye-witnesses might be at a distance of one or two feet in a way. Those may also be termed as close range by ordinary person who have got no technical knowledge or knowing the meaning of close range. The close range as has been deposed by the eye-witnesses might be at a distance of one or two feet in a way. Those may also be termed as close range by ordinary person who have got no technical knowledge or knowing the meaning of close range. Only because blackening or tattooing was not there around the wound of entrance it cannot be said that the gun shot was not fired from a close distance and closeness of the distance being a related term. Another point has been raised which was also raised before the Sessions Judge to the effect that normally the wound of exist becomes a bit larger than the wound of entry but in the present case the wound of exist is found to be smaller than the wound of entry. That point was clarified when raised before the doctor in cross-examination and from the medical jurisprudence also it could be found that generally there might be wound of exist larger than the wound of entry depending upon the travelling of the projectile of the gun shot. If we consider the present case regarding the projectile, it could be found that it had trespassed the various parts of the body and by that way the force of projectile might have been lessened causing, the wound of exist smallr and exception from the general rule always proved the generality of the rule and the medical jurisprudence also explains that exception might be there. When ocular evidence is overwhelming then the doctors opinion on the measurement made by him may not be taken as gospel one to belie the ocular evidence. 10. On independent scrutiny of the evidence on record, we come to the same finding as that of the learned Sessions Judge that the prosecution could be able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that it was accused-appellant who had caused murder of the deceased intentionally and, as such, conviction arrived at and the sentence imposed is proper and justified and the same cannot be interfered with. 11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed having no force upholding the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.